New Zealanders are consuming a moderate level of sucrose that’swithin the WHO recommendation for added sugars: below 10% of our total energy intake. Sucrose consumption can be used as a proxy for measuring added sugar intake, and sucrose intakes declined between 1997 and 2008/09, from a median of 53g/day to 48g/day. That’s about a teaspoon less per person a day – nearly 2kgs less a year!

So sugar consumption is declining in NZ, even though obesity is rising. So why is a tax on soda drinks the answer?

The latest adult nutrition survey also indicates a reduction in the proportion of sucrose from non-alcoholic beverages and sweets, and an increase in the proportion of sucrose from fruit, compared with 1997.

burt

kowtow

“So why is a tax on soda drinks the answer?”

Because no one is prepared to point at the fat waddling bastards and say , ‘You are a fat lazy c#nt who won’t take responsibilty for your own personal circumstances and are costing the country a fortune’

The Establishment does it to tobacco smokers and drinkers , why not fat bastards?

burt

Caine9

As usual, the obsessive food nazis will ignore the facts because they are driven by a zeal of their own making. Truth is never allowed to get in the way of a cause, however ridiculous. We have a bad habit in New Zealand (but by no means only us) of falling behind the extremists because they shout the loudest.

Rich Prick

“So why is a tax on soda drinks the answer?”

Because it’s easy. No other reason. Of course it won’t make a jot of difference, but it is “doing something” and lefty health zealots love to be seen doing something. And besides, it keeps them in funding.

mikenmild

burt
You could be right in a way. Has a mistaken emphasis (and governments’ endorsement) on the low-fat, low cholesterol idea made the obesity epidemic worse? Look at all the ‘low fat’ products that are stuffed with sugar instead.

mara

I frequently see obese families with a trolley load of coloured, sugary, fizzy drinks. Whack a few cents of tax on each bottle of this muck and absolutely nothing will change. Maybe, if they are a little tight financially, they will just cut down on milk or vegs. Hopeless.

YesWeDid

It’s not just about obesity it’s also about the damage that sugary drinks are doing to our children’s teeth.

Also here is what the WHO actually said:

‘A new WHO guideline recommends adults and children reduce their daily intake of free sugars to less than 10% of their total energy intake. A further reduction to below 5% or roughly 25 grams (6 teaspoons) per day would provide additional health benefits.’

burt

mikenmild

Look at all the ‘low fat’ products that are stuffed with sugar instead.

Indeed, the “food fad” to avoid fat because it was the root of all evil has brought us to another food fad – sugar being evil. Lets all jump on the band wagon because we know everything there is to know about nutrition – our war on fat proved that !

Maggy Wassilieff

@mikenmild

oh, no! A conspiracy…. Surely not. You couldn’t fool all of the highly qualified Ph.Ds in nutritional science and all the MDs into believing something like Fat was evil or Cholesterol was a killer.
People wouldn’t be that silly to think that all these clever people might have jumped on a bandwagon before the science was settled?
Nah, couldn’t happen.

Seems some folks are Fat deniers/ Fructose fiddlers/ sugar swindlers/ Cholesterol crooks……
Hey, lets have a FBI investigation into WHO is funding these frauds.

wreck1080

It’s all easy to say stuff won’t work, not so easy to say what will work .

I have a couple of ideas about what is causing the obesity crisis…

– Chinese people.

– Proliferation of fast food outlets.

– immigration

First, chinese people — they pushed up house prices (arguable I know but it is an interesting link).

Families busier than ever to pay off their houses meaning more families than ever have both parents working full time and maxed out. Due to this, people don’t have time to prepare proper meals and the quality of eating in many families has dropped considerably in modern times.

Second – -fast food outlets — easier than ever to get a high calorie delicious snack of high fat salt meat and carbs. When I grew up as a kid there was only one maccas, in queen st auckland and that was a treat as opposed to a regular meal choice like today for many people. Sure, you’d do friday night F&C but not always and that was about the only fast food you’d eat.

third – immigration — more pressure on housing, more pressure to work. Immigration from the pacific islands especially increases our obesity rate as they are the fattest in the world and auckland is the polynesian world capital.

Scott

I really hope the national government stays right away from this. This is the type of dopey thing that the Greens and labour dream up, this is why they are the parties of the “nanny state”.

All that would happen if we had a sugar tax is that we would vastly complicate the tax system and give work to legions of lawyers arguing on behalf of their client why this particular food should be exempted because it’s only 0.1% over the sugar tax threshold.

Also it is social engineering and adds to the growth of the bureaucratic state telling us what to do and why can’t the government get out of our lives and leave law-abiding citizens alone?

That’s scarcely an uninterested source, funded by the sugar industry in Australia and NZ. Interestingly they use sucrose consumption as an indicator and it is likely that the ratio of sucrose to other sugar consumption has changed over time.

As it is, I’d rather they taxed sugary drinks rather than, say, alcohol. But then again, I drink alcohol and not sugary drinks, so I guess that’s not an uninterested position.

There is no logic in what things taxes are levied on. Taxes are just a way to fund Government and the Public Service (which are necessary at some level or other).

Why not a tax on doorhandles? It’s no more illogical than a tax on anything else. No tax is better than any other tax.

We should oppose the whole idea that taxpayer funding of hospitals can justify regulation of any aspect of our lives and choices that might affect our future need for medical treatment. That power is much too broad.

The right way to look at this is what would happen in a free society. People would have health insurance. Insurers would want to charge fatties more but actually weighing them would be too hard. So they would sell policies with a higher excess if you need treatment and your BMI is above a specified level. The government can do exactly the same. They don’t need to refuse hospital treatment, just send fat people a bill. Anyone who offsets their sugar consumption with exercise would not need to pay anything, which is as it should be.

Grizz

The reduction in sugar intake is probably explained by the increase in artificially sweetened soft drinks. Like sugar, they still make your brain tell you to eat more food. I think the real culprit for our rise in obesity is that people are less likely to prepare proper meals at home and instead opt for highly processed takeaway and convenience foods. Sure people struggle with the time but educating people on meal planning and having meals prepared in advance could be a way to help limit resorting to junk food. Good education around food, meals and preparation would achieve a lot more than a sugar tax.

mikenmild

blazeoflight

How often do we see accusations of conflict of interest here thrown at any non-RWNJ organisation?

Founded in 2002, the SRAS is funded through the Australian Sugar Industry Alliance and New Zealand Sugar. It is managed by a team of qualified nutrition professionals, including Accredited Practising Dietitians and Registered Dietitians from Australia and New Zealand. – See more at: http://www.srasanz.org/sras/about-us/#sthash.Je0N7bVO.dpuf

This is the same as the problem with the New Zealand Initiative: conflict of interest writ large.

Both SRAS and NZI as about as independent as the ‘independent’ reviewer appointed by the PM to protect the PM from revealing the truth about his tax affairs.

Ed Snack

Mikenmild, then if you put up arguments in favour of a sugar tax you want to exclude all those who prefer to ride bandwagons and indulge in “virtuous” moral signalling. That excludes a lot of people.

It is certainly reasonable to consider the previous forays of the activists in this area; the whole “get rid of fats and cholesterol” movement that convinced a generation to change dietary habits and led to the current wave of obesity and diabetes. Those activists are directly culpable and should be (just IMHO) criminally liable for a crime against humanity for what they did. Because they knew full well that the science wasn’t settled at all and that they were likely wrong, but they chose to act as they did for personal power and moralistic preaching.

stephieboy

Big Sugar is having its tobacco moment

Should we treat food and drinks high in added sugars like we do alcohol and demand separate areas to sell them? Kieron Rooney thinks so.

“There is not a single study showing that added sugar is good for you.”
These words are from investment banking firm Credit Suisse.
While many may question nutritional advice from a group of economists, few could dispute their ability to identify accurate trends in data.
In a report on global sugar consumption, Credit Suisse has identified growing negative views towards sugar which it says provides “green shoots for dietary changes and social health advancement”.
The report is a warning to the food and beverage industry and specifically to companies with an economic model that is dependent on products manufactured with added sugar

The Credit Suisse warning suggests these companies should prepare for government-imposed changes to the way they operate their businesses including regulations on sugar-sweetened foods, taxation or greater opportunities for consumers to self-regulate sugar consumption by providing ‘healthier’ alternatives including products manufactured with non-sugar sweeteners.

Ultimately, the investment bankers believe taxation would be the best approach and will provide the best outcome.
If all this tax and regulation sounds familiar, well, it is.

Calls for the government to intervene to regulate excess sugar consumption have been compared to the anti-smoking movement.
Just like Big Tobacco, Big Sugar could be the next big public health campaign.

Some have suggested that the sugar industry is approaching its Tobacco Moment – when regulators need to step in to protect society before any more harm is done…”

tvb

It is not only about obesity but it is also about tooth decay and diabetes. Measure to greatly reduce the consumption of sugar will help. I think the price should double and manufacturers chould then halve the amount they use to keep prices the same. Sugar has no real food value so halving its use will cause no harm.

rouppe

tvb

Kids are getting rotten teeth because they are being given this stuff daily by their parents. This type of product was never intended for those younger than middle-teenagers. All the marketing is about cool 18-25 year olds having fun and enjoying a coke along with it.

Parents putting it into baby bottles is completely inappropriate.

Putting 20-50c tax on it will do nothing to alter the thinking of those with an IQ under 80

So sugar consumption is declining in NZ, even though obesity is rising. So why is a tax on soda drinks the answer?

It isn’t. Refined carbs in general, not sucrose in particular, is the problem and a tax on sugary drinks wouldn’t address that problem.

On the other hand:

…the WHO recommendation for added sugars: below 10% of our total energy intake.

What the fuck? The WHO recommends(!) consuming sucrose, as long as it’s less than 10% (!!!! You’re shitting me, right?) of your total energy intake? Why would anyone at the WHO be surprised the world is filling up with fat bastards, when they make recommendations like that?

Left Right and Centre

I’ve never called them ‘soda drinks’ – that’s Americanese. Soft drink in ziland. Mind you – it’s becoming a dumb-dumb who gives a shit free for all I know. Lolly water is a zilandism.

That’s because there’s plenty of food and drink items with a medium to high food energy kilojoule value. Not just sugar. Bread, rice, potato, pasta. Meat and dairy. Junk food. Alcohol. Quantity is the killer – a can of Coke is cool but 3 litres today noddy ?

What can really have a health halo ? A raw carrot. Cabbage. Meat and dairy in the right quantity. Prepared without being pickled in butter and what have you tasty evilness.
You see these fat mofos – filthy face-filling flobs. They’re just loading up on shit all day long.
You’d have to tax everything. Potatoes. Eat enough and you’ll turn into a big fat potato. Spuds are sort of ok – unless you use them for a daily eating contest.

Than

Sure, rouppe, but when you are putting up arguments against a sugar tax you might want to select from researchers who aren’t funded by the sugar industry.

So fucken what.

The SRAS has provided specific, easily checked statements to support their position. Facts are facts, no matter who says them. Ignoring everything the SRAS says simply because they are an interested party is just a convenient excuse to ignore evidence you don’t like.